left_click

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not mention that clicks mutate UI state irreversibly, nor that high-risk actions may require the confirmation_token parameter, nor any rate/permission constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier ('left button') front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though so terse that the alias/compatibility semantics are left unexplained.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world interaction tool with no output schema, the description does not say whether it behaves identically to `click`, how element_index vs coordinate targeting resolves, or when confirmation tokens are needed. The schema covers parameters, but the alias/routing semantics an agent needs are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters (coordinate spaces, element_index, element_click_mode, confirmation_token) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete action (left-button click) and explicitly frames the tool as a compatibility alias for the sibling `click`, which lets an agent tell it apart from right_click/middle_click/double_click without opening a schema. It is clear, but it never explains what 'compatibility alias' means operationally (identical behavior? legacy only?).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Calling itself a 'compatibility alias' weakly signals that `click` is the preferred tool and this exists for backward compatibility, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not rule or stated condition that selects this over `click` or `left_click_drag`. Usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.